Republicans, remember: You asked for this. Given the choice between a dozen solid conservatives and one Clinton-supporting con artist and game-show host, you chose the con artist. You chose him freely. Nobody made you do it.

#9 | Posted by lee_the_agent

Which is why they should forever and always have this decision rubbed in their faces and have it pointed out to them that they have neither the intelligence nor the good judgement to be allowed to make decisions or tell anyone else how things should be.

Maybe tell that to your party. If Trump is THAT bad, what does that say about your party's discernment when picking a winner? When no one wants what the DNC is selling, they double down on what no one wants.

#23 | Posted by lfthndthrds

I have. I was also vocally against Harris.

Looking at 2020 and 2024, it's clear that Trump didn't win, the Dems lost. He only gained 3 million votes between the two elections out of 75 million in 2020. That's barely a blip in increased support.

The Democrats weren't suitably prepared for the racism and misogyny, combined with the blind cult followers like yourself, of about half the nation.

It's only about 25%.

And Harris was just bad, never polling above a few percentage points and was the first to drop out of the primary in 2020. It's ok to admit it.

What is shrimpd*&^ rambling about?

Any woman is a terrible candidate.
America isn't ready to elect a woman -- end of story.
It was clueless of the Democrats to think Americans aren't even more misogynistic than they are racist.

#41 | Posted by snoofy

I see we're never going to learn the lesson that all identity politics all the time is a losing strategy...

Harris wasn't a good candidate. Period. It's ok to admit that.

Racism and misogyny - coupled with a 120 day runway to run her campaign. It's all there in front of you. Lame duck Donnie has lost the narrative, and only the die hard cultists are on board the demented pedo train. Sucks to be you.

#49 | Posted by chuffy

Except you're ignoring the fact that she was a wildly UNSUCCESSFUL candidate in the Dem primary who never broke a few percentage points of support and was the first to drop out.

In an open playing field, she wasn't remotely close to a preferred candidate.

It was beyond foolish to believe she would perform much better after being selected as the candidate, especially after a pretty unremarkable four years as VP.

In other words, you only call it "identity politics" when the identity isn't White, Male, Christian.
That's your identity politics, JPW.

#88 | Posted by snoofy

Hardly, you pathetic ball-less wonder.

It's identity politics when some whipped cuck like you tries to paint over an obvious loss with strident cries of ics, isms and ists while completely ignoring the obvious reality staring you in the face.

What makes progressive "men" so sad and willing to stoop this low?

Because of right wing propaganda that people listened to and a botched hand off to her.

#52 | Posted by GalaxiePete

Nope.

It was a bad plan implemented in 2020 when she was named (foolishly) to be VP that the DNC was apparently pot committed to.

There wasn't anything that was going to rescue that campaign. Sorry.

I'll never understand that one.

#67 | Posted by eberly

What's not to understand?

She ran in 2020. Didn't even make it to the Iowa caucus. Was selected as VP anyway and did nothing to set herself above others in the administration (I think Buttigieg was a good example of the type of presence she needed to have).

Instead, the DNC hoped to fulfill their dream of a woman POTUS based on "not Trump" and "she's the VP," as if in the past it was the mere occupancy of the office that mattered and not the achievements that put previous VPOTUS in that office.

The nail in the coffin was the mismanagement of their own base. For examples of that, see any Gaza thread here.

Covid. Trump handled it poorly and I believe it's the primary reason he lost to Biden.

#71 | Posted by BellRinger

As usual, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

A few independents went to Trump and the rest stayed home. That's the only thing I can come up with, but I doubt Doc will do anything but dance around the issue.

#74 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Wow. Lfthndturd actually had a thought, and it didn't kill him.

Bravo.

His administration was a trainwreck literally and figuratively. Talk about being delusional.

#81 | Posted by BellRinge

You are easily one of the most lacking in critical thinking and, come to think of it, thinking skills in general on this entire site.

The only way this conclusion is reached is you simply believe without question poorly supported bulls*&^ narratives you don't understand.

Women aren't good candidates. Period. It's okay to admit that too.

#86 | Posted by snoofy

Your words, not mine.

Which is weird given women win elections all the time in the US for HoR, Senate, governor, state level offices...

So you're saying there's no room for misogyny at all, in why Kamala Harris wasn't a successful candidate?
You aren't that stupid. But you might be that proud.

#97 | Posted by snoofy

Nope. Never said that at all.

Nothing is ever zero. Ever.

But it's not why she lost.